Main navigation

Reevaluating the Great Apostasy

One week ago, I celebrated the twenty-eighth anniversary of my baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One reason for my baptism was the fact that I saw the various hallmarks of the ancient Church I gleaned from studying ancient Roman history that were absent from the other Churches I attended.

In my early days as a member of the Church, I had thought, like James Talmage in his book, The Great Apostasy, that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen away from the true Christian Church, and that other non-LDS Christian Churches were corruptions of a corruptions. I have found that my opinions have, …, um, …, evolved. Rather than being the Great Apostasy, I now regard the Roman Catholic and other non-LDS Christian Churches as pious humans’ valiant attempts to salvage true Christianity from the Great Apostasy; attempts that were, for the most part, successful–significantly more successful than I had previously thought.

Don’t get me wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still the only one with God’s unmitigated authority, and there is still the Great Apostasy. The hallmarks that I found still mark the Church as true, and I have found nothing that shakes my faith about God’s relationship with His Church. I have found, though, that I must assimilate new data.

To continue the Humpty Dumpty analogy, when the Church fell and was broken into several pieces, several of those pieces were irretrievable, many of those lost pieces were significant. Thus, we need God to restore those parts. Moreover, when attempts to gather in as much of the egg (Read: Church) as possible, it was quite easy for the gatherers to include impurities that were not part of the egg in the first place. Of course, only God has the ability to purge the impurities without purging parts of the true Church. While man cannot help “throwing the baby out with the bath water,” God can easily get rid of dirty water while keeping the baby.

Still, it is remarkable how much of the true Church was salvaged. For one thing, they salvaged the Books of the Holy Bible–with only about 10% corruption [Don Stewart and Josh McDowell, in their book, Answers, give a 10% difference in the earliest texts (p. 45).]. God says in D&C 91:1 that even the Apocrypha is most correct. And, of course, God refers to non-LDS Christians as being in a “saved condition” [D&C 132:17]. It is only the creeds that God found abominable–insofar as they spread incorrect doctrines [JS-H 1:19]. No wonder that Joseph Smith said that non-LDS Christians had much truth [HC 5:517]–and Brigham Young confirms it [JD 7:283]!

To those who accuse me of apostasy, I must, like John Maynard Keynes, say, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

UPDATE:

I received a comment from NOYDMB that, in effect, asked why I allowed some people to go off topic. I must state here that I was seriously considering deleting all the highjacking posts, but I had thought that the illustrative value of the comments–as written–carried a greater value. The sheer hate that the “orthodox” have for those they consider “heretical non-Christians,” I thought, was much too good a lesson for Latter-day Saints (and FAIR-minded others!) to miss–at least until the haters violated all bounds of civil conduct.

However, those people did remain within those bounds (though not perfectly), and I thank them for that. Nevertheless, because of space constraints, the time has come to separate that illustration from my original post. The early part of that exchange follows:

You said, “I find it entirely appropriate that you compare mormonism to a fairy tale.”

You are wrong, Sir, on two counts:
1. I was not comparing Mormonism, but ancient Christianity’s decline from its New Testament state, and,
2. It was a nursery rhyme I was comparing it to. The nursery rhyme is an entirely different genre from the fairy tale.

Marcus Brody wrote:
It’s not like any fairy tale I’ve read, but the creative process is the same.

In other words, comparing the Book of Mormon to a fairy tale is not “entirely appropriate.” The Book of Mormon does not resemble a fairy tale in tone, style, or content.

Now you write about the “creative process.” Well, I believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient record by the gift and power of God. If you do not believe that, what alternative explanation can you offer?To be clear here, I’m calling it a work of fiction. Where are all ruins of all the Lamanite cities in the Americas? Why are wheat and barley listed among the plants found in America when they were brought here by Europeans? (These are serious questions you need to ask yourself)

I am sure that those are very interesting questions (especially to a botanist or archeologist), but they miss the point entirely. My belief in the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with ruins, wheat or barley. I believe in the Book of Mormon for the same reason I believe in the Bible: I have studied both, made up my mind, and asked God for confirmation.
If you REALLY want to compare the BoM to the Bible we can, but I suspect you won’t be happy with what we find. We really don’t need to do it, for here is a very nicely done video that does it for us.

I have been comparing the Bible and the Book of Mormon for years, not by watching some video, but by actually studying the books themselves. I recommend the same approach to you.

Your “Book” calls itself “another testament of Jesus Christ”. Right? Testament means covenant. A covenant is an agreement or contract between two or more entities. If the BoM is another testament/covenant/contract/agreement of Jesus Christ, it would certainly follow suit that it meets the criteria of being another gospel…from an angel.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.) [Galatians 1:8-9 LDS website edition]

Your prophets have made it clear that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament. And, “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over”, right?

If the Prophet did not “make up” his story and and angel from heaven indeed gave it to him, then there’s a problem somewhere either in his story or the one that the angel gave him, for it is a different gospel than the one presented in the Bible.

So, it would be entirely appropriate to compare the BoM to a fairy tale, because somewhere, somebody made up the story; it didn’t come from God.

PK,

It’s not like any fairy tale I’ve read, but the creative process is the same. To be clear here, I’m calling it a work of fiction. Where are all ruins of all the Lamanite cities in the Americas? Why are wheat and barley listed among the plants found in America when they were brought here by Europeans? (These are serious questions you need to ask yourself) If you REALLY want to compare the BoM to the Bible we can, but I suspect you won’t be happy with what we find. We really don’t need to do it, for here is a very nicely done video that does it for us.

Reader Interactions

Comments

I appreciate your research on this. As a Protestant investigating the claims of the LDS Church in a serious manner, I am warmed to find that my own personal testimony of Christ is not negated as much as I thought it would be if I became a Latter Day Saint. You are quite correct though- the Roman Catholic Church was simply a reaction to the times and “needs must”. Much of the preservation of the NT was completed in and through the Catholic Church, so we all have much to be thankful for.

I must take issue however with making a 10% “corruption” equivalent to a 10% “difference”. Josh McDowell is a very clever person- schooled in archaeology and apologetics. If he had meant “corruption” he would have clearly said so- unless you can prove to me that this is indeed what he said. I am very open to being corrected. It’s just that in the 20 years I have been a Christian I have never read McDowell saying anything of the sort. What you *do* get are “variations” in that one ancient text will say something quite different to the other, though the context often leads to the same outcome. These are at times individual words, phrases, sometimes sentences and rarely entire books or passages (if ever).

That’s a world of difference between “corruptions” and “differences” there!

As an outsider looking in- and I understand that your Scriptures state that there are corruptions in the Bible so you have to admit to this from the outset- you *don’t need* corruptions in the Bible to make your position tenable. I hadn’t even imagined such corruptions and I am finding the evidence outstanding in favor of your position.

Anyway, I appreciated your entry and thanks for the opportunity to learn and contribute to the discussion!

I appreciate your article Steven, and your simple and clear analogy. It rings very true that we should follow Paul’s admonition to “seek after”, express gratitude for and embrace all that is good in all things and in all people and in all churches. Often when we think of the Great Apostacy and/or *Dark* Ages, it is easy to imagine that the heavens were closed completely, however this cannot be, as you and others before have presented. And might I add that I am personally thankful for the inspiration Martin Luther received, and for his huge contribution to the preservation and expansion of musical liturgy. Indeed, throughout all of those centuries one of the greatest *pieces* of revelation [in my view] which remained and sustained was the music. Where would we be without all of that glorious, uplifting and divine music passed down to us which brings us ever closer to our Creator. Yes, as you have stated the authority was absoluely lost, along with many necessary *pieces* irretrievable without divine restoration, however it was the crucial pieces which remained – such as the Bible, hymns, prayer, personal revelation – which prepared Joseph Smith for his calling, and the early saints for conversion. Each of these things continue to be important preparatory gifts from the Lord for those who embrace the Restoration. Our own President Hinckley was keenly aware of the importance of this concept: “We invite all to come, and bring all of the good that you already have, and then we will add more to it”.

I also enjoyed very much reading Paul’s fresh perspective and contribution, which stands as a second witness of these truths.

I wonder if it is helpful to talk about a “Great Apostasy” when we will never know the details. Perhaps we are better served by simply describing the history of the early church as best as it can be recovered.

Rather than being the Great Apostasy, I now regard the Roman Catholic and other non-LDS Christian Churches as pious humans’ valiant attempts to salvage true Christianity from the Great Apostasy; attempts that were, for the most part, successful–significantly more successful than I had previously thought.

Even though I disagree with you altogether concerning there having ever been a Great Apostasy it is interesting to hear this perspective. Where Talmage’s view presents a closed and hardened face, yours seems to present a more open and understanding point of view.

Steven, you’d probably be interested in recent conversations at T&S on the same subject in these posts: “Apostasy is Back on the Bookshelf” and “Apostasy and the Dark Ages.” It’s my imprerssion that senior LDS leaders have really softened their tone on this subject over the last generation (although not, of course, abandoning any claims to exclusive priesthood authority).

“It’s just that in the 20 years I have been a Christian I have never read McDowell saying anything of the sort. What you *do* get are “variations” in that one ancient text will say something quite different to the other, though the context often leads to the same outcome. These are at times individual words, phrases, sometimes sentences and rarely entire books or passages (if ever).

That’s a world of difference between “corruptions” and “differences” there!”

-I would like to address this point quickly.
The 10% corruption can have no meaning to differences as those you described above. Reason for this is that because the early manuscripts have as much variations and differences than the new testament has words, so the differences you mentioned would soar in this case to ove 100% closely to even 200% accordiong to scholars, that’s how many “differences” there are that don’t change the actual meaning of what was said.

Knowing this, we can be sure that the 10% meant actual corruption of the text instead of differences and variations in the manuscripts.

“Rather than being the Great Apostasy, I now regard the Roman Catholic and other non-LDS Christian Churches as pious humans’ valiant attempts to salvage true Christianity from the Great Apostasy; attempts that were, for the most part, successful–significantly more successful than I had previously thought.”

Amen, Brother.
I believe that one of Satan’s greatest tools is for us, as LDS people to believe “we” have the only Truth. We don’t.
All spiritual truths are a stairway to the highest truths and each one of us has our own path to get there. Jesus Christ leads us to Him.
In the end, ALL knees shall bow. How they get there is the Lord’s buisness, not ours.
He brings all His sheep to where they need to be, gathering the experiences they need to get there. We need to make sure we stay out of His way as He calls them.
We also need to stay out of our own way as He tries to lead us.

You said, **As a Protestant investigating the claims of the LDS Church in a serious manner, I am warmed to find that my own personal testimony of Christ is not negated as much as I thought it would be if I became a Latter Day Saint.**

I would image that your testimony of Christ would be negated not at all! 😉

Unlike other Churches that last heard from God at the end of the first century AD (and thus, find it hard to rebut Nietsche’s boast that God is dead), here is a Church that testifies that Jesus Christ is around directing us on what to do–in the twenty-first century!

As a former Protestant, I can telly you that, since joining the Church, I have received new and exciting evidences that Jesus Christ is Lord–and He lives! 😀

You said, **I must take issue however with making a 10% “corruption” equivalent to a 10% “difference”….**

**That’s a world of difference between “corruptions” and “differences” there!**

You’re right, of course, but I’d like to show you why I think that they make good proxies for each other:

Let’s assume that there are only two major complete earliest documents (For all intents and purposes, that is the case.), with one being either the original or the true copy. In this case, the 10% difference means that the non-true copy is corrupted by 10% from the original.

However, it is probable that neither of the earliest texts are true copies. In this case, the differences in the copies would mean that, in some cases, copy A would agree with the original, and, in other cases, copy B would agree, and, in still others, both copies are wrong. This implies, as you point out, that each copy is somewhat less than 10% wrong.

But wait. Since there is probably an original that differs somewhat from the other two, we have neglected an unknown number of instances where both texts agree with each other, but disagree with the original. In short, both copies are wrong, together. This makes, as members of the Jesus Seminar point out, that 10% figure an estimate, albeit a conservative one.

I’m not willing to go as far as the Jesus Seminar, however! 😉

You also correctly point out that many, if not most, of those differences are just alternate ways of saying the same thing. Obviously, this mitigates the aggravating factors I described, above.

Moreover, additional support comes from Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Bible, which has similar differences.

All of this confirms in my mind that the 10% figure is nearly the correct amount.

You said, “Even though I disagree with you altogether concerning there having ever been a Great Apostasy it is interesting to hear this perspective. Where Talmage’s view presents a closed and hardened face, yours seems to present a more open and understanding point of view.”

Dr. Talmage was educated at a Wesleyan college at a time that still smarted from three centuries of acrimony between Reformation and Counter-Reformation. This may have coloured his views, somewhat.

Elder Talmage had a reputation of altering his views when new data makes the old ones untenable. I believe that, had he known what most LDS know now, he wouldn’t have been so sharp.

Seth says: “While I have long ago embraced the idea that traditional Christianity is owed a great debt of gratitude for carrying the torch so long, neither am I convinced that Talmage’s view is incorrect either.”

I’m not saying that Elder Talmage was wrong, either. He did his homework, and I am convinced (long before I joined the Church!) that there was a Great Apostasy. His tone, however (perhaps influenced by his education), implies conclusions that I’m not willing to draw.

Juliann says: “I wonder if it is helpful to talk about a “Great Apostasy” when we will never know the details. Perhaps we are better served by simply describing the history of the early church as best as it can be recovered.”

The problem is, we know as little about the early Church as we do the Great Apostasy.

Further, when people see differences between the ancient and modern Church, I’m sure they will want to know how and why.

Correctly diagnosing the malady is the first step toward taking the right cure! 😉

Steve – I have had this question for awhile now, so I think this would be a good time to ask it.

Why do we make allowances for mistakes of Joseph Smith, BY and others that we say did not diminish the truthfulness of our church, and yet the mistakes of the early church leaders somehow cannot be over looked? It would seem reasonable to me, if we make such allowances for us, then it would not be wrong to allow the same forgiveness/allowance for the early church leaders?

I guess I am asking, why did God not correct the old church instead of starting a new one? I am not trying to start an argument, just curious.

CEF asks, “I guess I am asking, why did God not correct the old church instead of starting a new one? I am not trying to start an argument, just curious.”

I don’t view it as an argument. I really think that is a good question–one that requires a good answer! 😉

Certainly, if God is capable of resurrecting a dead Lazarus [See John 11:], He can revive a moribund Church.

I posit two reasons that might explain why God established His Church anew, rather than simply restoring it to its earlier state.

1. There comes a point where the Church just stops being the Church, and becomes something else entirely. I think that, if, say, Pope Benedict were to align the Church with ancient Christianity, Catholics could not help noticing the radical changes done by his predecessors. From their view, the radical change back would make *him* look the heretic, or the massive reversion would expose many of his predecessors as heretics; the latter would undermine his authority to make the changes, since he is supposed to be the successor to those heretics. I guess I’m saying that if Pope Benedict XVI were to radically revert Catholicism to Christianity, he would undermine his own authority.

Further, the “Reformation” is merely a human attempt by the Reformers to restore the ancient Church anew. As I mentioned in the main entry, it was a valiant attempt, but it was an impossible task without God doing it.

2. More likely, I think, is that it was a fulfillment of Saint John the Baptist’s prophecy, “that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” [Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8]. Many Christians, Jews, and Muslims of Joseph Smith’s era (and NOW!) were quite arrogant in their superiority complex to others.

Of course, as Dennis Miller says, it’s just my opinion, and I could be wrong! 😉

CEF asks, “I guess I am asking, why did God not correct the old church instead of starting a new one? I am not trying to start an argument, just curious.”

Good question. It would be like what Alma the Elder did in the Book of Mormon. The church was already there, it was just reorganized.

IMO, the apostasy occured long before any of the existing churches were founded. So which one does God pick to “correct”? And if he picks one, does that by implication validate the actions/policies/doctrine of that church prior to the “correction”? It is kind of like the parable of putting new wine in old bottles. Matt 9:17

BruceC Says:
**IMO, the apostasy occured long before any of the existing churches were founded. So which one does God pick to “correct”? And if he picks one, does that by implication validate the actions/policies/doctrine of that church prior to the “correction”? It is kind of like the parable of putting new wine in old bottles. Matt 9:17**

**A covenant is an agreement or contract between two or more entities. If the BoM is another testament/covenant/contract/agreement of Jesus Christ, it would certainly follow suit that it meets the criteria of being another gospel…from an angel.**

You assuming too much, and your conclusion does not follow from the facts you present. While there may be more than one “contract” based on the Gospel, or “Good News,” that fact does not mean that the “Good News” has changed–or that there is another Gospel.

**Your prophets have made it clear that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament. And, “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over”, right?**

As Kent pointed out, you are wrong on both counts.

**If the Prophet did not “make up” his story and and angel from heaven indeed gave it to him, then there’s a problem somewhere either in his story or the one that the angel gave him, for it is a different gospel than the one presented in the Bible.**

You’re assuming facts not in evidence.

**So, it would be entirely appropriate to compare the BoM to a fairy tale, because somewhere, somebody made up the story; it didn’t come from God.**

That is something for you to prove; not for us to accept without question.

I hate to break in on the epic battle between Indy and Marcus, but I wanted to offer my interpretation of the ancient vs modern church discussion.

Since we have many, many examples of things in the real world that relate to the Savior, His death, and His resurrection, then I think it would be appropriate to compare the church in that manner, as well.

The ancient church had to die, only to be resurrected, never to be taken away again.

On the first statement: Our leaders have consistently taught that the Jesus we worship is the Jesus of the New Testament. The statement that they “…have made it clear that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament” is false on its face.

This makes your second statement moot. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that it is also incorrect. While it is true that some Church leaders have suggested that “when the prophet speaks, the debate is over,” the fact that I disagree, and remain in full fellowship in the Church, is an existence proof that this statement is false, is it not?

But, beyond that, Joseph Smith consistently taught that every member was entitled to his own testimony, by the Holy Ghost, of anything Joesph Smith preached. His statements were not to be taken on his authority alone.

Furthermore, the Doctrine and Covenant’s standard for something to be canonical is that it be formally promulgated by all the members of the First Presidency, not just the President. So, for your first claim to have any validity, you would have to show me a formal statement by the united First Presidency stating that the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the New Testament. I think you’ll search in vain for such a statement.

*is* a formal statement by the united First Presidency *and* the Quorum of the Twelve that starts with the statements:

“As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.

He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New….”

The language of the final statement is poetic, but the meaning is clear: The Jesus of Mormonism *is* the Jesus of the New Testament.

I hate to break in on the epic battle between Indy and Marcus, but I wanted to offer my interpretation of the ancient vs modern church discussion.

Since we have many, many examples of things in the real world that relate to the Savior, His death, and His resurrection, then I think it would be appropriate to compare the church in that manner, as well.

The ancient church had to die, only to be resurrected, never to be taken away again.

Just my thoughts…

– Dr. Henry Jones, Sr.
———————————————————–

Those are GOOD thoughts, “Dad”! 😉

Unlike the revival of Lazarus, where Lazarus died again, the Church stays alive.

The LDS Church News reported: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times'” (June 20, 1998, ).

And, as to the second point being moot, I humbly submit this quote:
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

PK, Let me try to make even clearer what I was really trying to say: The Book of Mormon isn’t LIKE a fairy tale: it IS a fairy tale.

My points about not finding the cities named in the BoM and the inaccuracies regarding the flora and fauna DOESN’T miss the point. The point is, Joseph Smith made up the story wrong. If the events in the BoM really took place, (that is, if is really a true story) then there would be archeological evidence to support it. Sadly, in the only officially recognized “archeological” site by the LDS, (The Hill of Cumorah) the Church knows there is nothing there so they won’t even allow research of the site.

If you truly have studied the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you would also realize that you can actually visit many of the sites listed in the Bible. If you want to book a flight to Jerusalem or go see Nain or Bethlehem, you can do that. If you want to see the ruins of Zarahemla, or the City of Bountiful, well, you’ll have to do it like Joseph Smith did; in his imagination.

Steve,
First of all, the ad hominem attack was uncalled for.

Evidence? My goodness, man! That’s what I’m asking for! Where is the evidence that anything in your Book of Mormon took place? Evidence? Tell me how your prophet was able to pick up the golden plates and run with them under his coat. They weighed at least 100 lbs, probably more! Even FARMS explanation of this has been ignored by most Mormons. Me provide the evidence? Is that how Mormons are taught to answer critics?

Seth, it is very “convenient” that it was LDS “researchers” that discovered this barley. Even if this was true, look at how much of the Book is clearly made up.

Rubbish? Wasting your time? I’m sorry you feel this way.

Mormon readers: I realize that I am “in your house”. It is obvious I am not welcome. You must understand how your religion looks to non-Mormons. Your scriptures are from, at best, dubious sources. If Joseph Smith truly did encounter an angel, it wasn’t from Heaven. He has either been deceived, or has perpetrated the most devious hoax in history. Look at the Book of Abraham. He translated a common “letter of the dead” into an entirely made up history of Abraham. Why can you not see that if he was willing to do that, and pass it as genuine and authentic, that he would not also continue to make up his religion?

I realize that many of you have found comfort in your faith. I know that many of you are sincere. Do you remember the story of “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”? Linus was convinced of the existence of the Great Pumpkin. He recruited his friends to go out and wait in the pumpkin patch with him. He was sincere in his beliefs. When it was all said and done, it turned out that he was sincerely wrong. He mistook a fable, story, fairy tale, whatever, as Truth.

Of course, persistence is not always a good thing. The old saying applies here: When you find yourself stuck in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Your insistence that the Book of Mormon must be a fairy tale raises doubt that you know anything about the fairy tale genre or the Book of Mormon. Frankly, it makes you look foolish.

Your faith in archeological evidence is entirely misplaced. The truthfulness of the Bible is not established by archeology, and never will be. Yes, one can visit Jerusalem and find an ancient city there, but so what? Even the most ardent atheist would not doubt that most of the places mentioned in the Bible actually existed.

But where is the archeological evidence that one Jesus of Nazereth—son of a virgin, worker of mighty miracles, sinless teacher of righteousness—was crucified, arose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven?

(I might add, that archeological support for the Book of Mormon is much stronger than you seem to realize. Another poster to this thread already mentioned that you were wrong about barley being absent from the Americas. As for cities, I would point out that Central America is full of ruined cities, some dating from the Book of Mormon times. My guess is that even if we could establish that a particular ruined city went by the name Zarahemla in ancient times, anti-Mormons would not be satisfied. So I do not bother arguing archeology with them.)

By the way, you never bothered explaining the “creative process” that you believe produced the Book of Mormon. If you had studied the book, as I have, you would have realized that it was beyond the abilities of a young, relatively unschooled person such as Joseph Smith to fabricate such a book. Indeed, I believe it was beyond the abilities of any of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries.

Nor have you bothered to explain why so many people who have studied the Book of Mormon and asked God about it, have received a witness by the Holy Ghost that it is true.

If you truly believe that Joseph Smith “made up” the Book of Mormon (excuse me while I gather my jaw from the floor), then I suggest you attempt an unscientific experiment: Try it yourself.

Chances are, you’re far more educated than Smith, himself, was. You should have a much easier time of it. Just remember, there are a few ground rules you must follow:

Your work of fiction must be several hundred pages in length. It must consist of a secular and spiritual history of a heretofore unknown civilization. It must also be recited from memory as you mimick “translation” from golden plates which witnesses will affirm that you received from an angel of the Lord. Millions must then testify of the truthfulness of your work of fiction, to the point of giving their lives for the “truths” contained therein. You must then willing give your life for the claims you have made.

Can you do it? No?? Come on, Marcus. You’re the curator of a museum of antiquities. A learnEd man.

You might also want to brush up on your history of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith never claimed that it was a direct translation of the papyrii.

Of course, that should have read “be willing” or “willingly”. How about an edit function? Oh, which, incidentally, Joseph Smith did not have the luxury of, either, as he busily “fabricated” the Book of Mormon. After you take a break for food or rest, you must continue your recitation of your memorized tome without having had the last line read back to you.

As we discuss sources of the apostasy, and the timely conversations occuring elsewhere, it would be well to remind us all of Brother Robinson’s translation of apostasy, how the word contains a connotation of “mutiny”. Those who try to lead and control the church and usurp the proper leadership. One need only read abit from various blogs to see this same process starting to occur amongst ourselves today. Even from those among the fair board (not in this post). You gotta be careful who you trust.

I understand that you Marcus believe your religion. Maybe you even got “comfort” from it at times.

Do you remember the story of “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”? Linus was convinced of the existence of the Great Pumpkin. Pumpkins exist Marcus. I can take you to a pumpkin patch. But the existence of pumpkin patch doesn’t mean that a dead pumpkin got up and walked around granting wishes or something. It is kinda like Jerusalem in Israel. Sure it’s there. But that doesn’t mean some dead guy got up out of his grave and walked around.

Listen… I know you’re sincere, but you have to understand how your faith looks to those of us on the outside. You believe old fables that assert crazy things that totally disagree with all the evidence in the world. Jesus saw “all the kingdoms of the world” (Matthew 8:4) from the top of a mountain. Impossible. the world isn’t flat, it’s round! Your bible says the sun moved backward in the sky 2 Kings 20:12. Clearly impossible. Your crazy “God” condoned genocide. You need to stop studying fables and be reasonable.

anyway back to my awesome Charlie Brown analogy:

Linus was convinced of the existence of the Great Pumpkin. He recruited his friends to go out and wait in the pumpkin patch with him. He was sincere in his beliefs. When it was all said and done, it turned out that he was sincerely wrong. He mistook a fable, story, fairy tale, whatever, as Truth.

An ancient defender of the Church started to rationalize that it is OK to use state force against heretics. Augustinus’ reasoning changed the church from being persecuted to being a persecuting church. Holy War was the result, and Islam learnt it from Christianity. Today we still have problems with it. It all began with “defending the church by attacking its opponents”.

Other apologists, for instance Justin Martyr, tried to show that Christianity is supreme philosophy. By doing so, they drove Christianity to Hellenisation.

To be honest, I fear that one major reason for apostasy was the honest but misled work of ancient apologists. We should learn from them and not repeat their mistakes.

“The LDS Church News reported: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times’” (June 20, 1998, ).”

There are two ways to take this. If you believe the traditional Christ (by which I think you mean the Christ of the creeds) is the Christ of the New Testament, then I can see why you might believe Hinckley is saying we don’t believe in the Christ of the New Testament.

I take it the way I believe President Hinckley meant it: The creedal Christ is not the Christ of the New Testament. It is modern revelation that has reacquainted us with the true Christ of the New Testament.

“And, as to the second point being moot, I humbly submit this quote:
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.””

Your original phrase was “When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.” I don’t see that anywhere in this quote. You’re moving the goalposts on us.

I saw your update. I’m not sulking, nor did I leave in a huff. Nor do I appreciate your patronizing tone. I do have a life outside of the blog-o-sphere, and it was the weekend.

You said in your email to me, “One more thing on this point: We Latter-day Saints are on DEFENCE [sic] with your claim. We need not prove ANYTHING. Any evidence we DO present is out of the goodness of the hearts that the Most High God gave us.”

I realize what I said is highly offensive. Yet, the subtitle of this “FAIR BLOG” is “defending Mormonism”. I hope you ARE on defense, for the claims your religion has made is highly offensive to Christianity and to God. The very topic of this post is “Reevaluating the Great Apostasy”. That is quite a claim. Quite arrogant, in fact. Very offensive to me personally.

My educational background only includes a few undergraduate courses in philosophy, therefore I am not as skilled in the craft of identifying fallacies as you. But then again, Colossians 2:8. And with that, perhaps an ad hominem attack of Joseph Smith is appropriate as well, for your presidents have all said that if what he said didn’t happen, Mormonism didn’t have a leg to stand on. So, I think that any claims he made must be defended.

Regarding the gold plates, on May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled “Hands-on opportunity.” Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, “He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit.” Your church says they were solid. You compared the weight carried by soldiers in the military. Didn’t Joseph tuck them under his arm and run at full-tilt for two miles?

I realize that it is hard to keep up with what the LDS church believes, because THEY keep changing the story. Some of the things your prophets have said are absolutely unbelievable: men on the moon, Jesus a polygamist, blacks are excluded, to name a few. I can certainly see why you would want to be able to think for yourself. Then again, you believe them when they say that Jesus is/was once the brother of Lucifer.

Ryan,

Why, if it is from God, does it have so many errors? Why can one not find any evidence that anything in it actually took place in the Americas?

Joseph presented the Book of Abraham as just exactly that. It turns out, that is is simply a very common “letter of the dead”. It wasn’t what he claimed it to be. He was either perpetrating a gigantic cruel deception, or he was deceived himself. There are no other options.

Well don’t pussyfoot with us. Do you believe the Jesus of the creeds is the Jesus of the New Testament, or not?

Because President Hinckley’s point, which I think the rest of us all understood, is that we believe that the Jesus of the creeds is *not* the Jesus of the New Testament; and that it is modern revelation that has restored to us a correct understanding of the Jesus of the New Testament, the living Jesus.

“This editorial represents the opinion of The Daily Universe editorial board. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of BYU, its administration or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ”

In other words, it’s the opinion of a bunch of college kids trying to prepare themselves for a career at a real newspaper someday. Not an official pronouncement of the Church.

I am perfectly at liberty to disagree with all or part of it. Happens I agree with most of it, but the use of the “debate is over” quote is one thing I disagree with.

“Some of the things your prophets have said are absolutely unbelievable: men on the moon, Jesus a polygamist, blacks are excluded, to name a few.”

This business of men on the moon is ably addressed at the FAIR wiki.

The idea of Jesus as a polygamist is absolutely unbelievable? Polygamy was a common practice in Hebrew culture. I consider it unlikely, but that’s a personal bias; it’s certainly not “absolutely unbelievable,” even for creedal Christians, if they know something about Hebrew culture.

Blacks not permitted to hold the Priesthood? I found the prohibition distasteful and was glad to see it go, but I note that God prohibited the Priesthood to any but descendants of Aaron in the Old Testament, so it’s hardly “absolutely unbelievable.”

“Then again, you believe them when they say that Jesus is/was once the brother of Lucifer.”

Yes, I do. However, it has not the significance you want to attribute to it.

Consider this: Does not your version of Christianity teach that Satan was once an archangel? That would make him most certainly a brother of Michael the Archangel. Does that fact somehow denigrate Michael the Archangel? Does the fact that God created a being that became pure evil somehow denigrate God?

It is important also to remember that we teach that Jesus’ relationship with the Father is different from the relationship of Satan, or any of us, to the Father. This is reflected in the title, frequently appearing in Mormon scripture, of Jesus as Firstborn. Though we do indeed teach that Satan, Christ, and the rest of us are all children of God — hence, all brethren — our sonship is not equal to Jesus’ Sonship, any more than Satan’s sonship is equal to Jesus’ Sonship.

To state that “Mormons believe Satan and Jesus are brothers,” without any of this additional context, is literally a reductio ad absurdum — stripping so much context that the statement becomes absurd and no longer reflects our understanding. Which, I suppose, makes it a highly convenient straw man.

**I do have a life outside of the blog-o-sphere, and it was the weekend.**

That was irrelevant. I am aware that we all have lives. It was your statement, “It is obvious I am not welcome,” that struck me as a prelude that you were leaving.

**I realize what I said is highly offensive.**

Then why did you say it? Do you not know that the Saviour said, “woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” [Matthew 18:7; see also Luke 17:1]?

**Yet, the subtitle of this “FAIR BLOG” is “defending Mormonism”. I hope you ARE on defense, for the claims your religion has made is highly offensive to Christianity and to God. The very topic of this post is “Reevaluating the Great Apostasy”. That is quite a claim. Quite arrogant, in fact. Very offensive to me personally.**

Yes, I am extremely aware that our existence is an offence to you!

If you aren’t Catholic, then I don’t see why talk of an apostasy would bother you. I’m sure you would agree that somewhere along the line, the institutional Church strayed from its New Testament mooring. You see, the Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, and others ALL broke off from the Catholics. The only question is WHEN was it apparent? If not, why aren’t you a Catholic?

**My educational background only includes a few undergraduate courses in philosophy, therefore I am not as skilled in the craft of identifying fallacies as you.**

I don’t see why not. The rules are simple enough, and taught in most college introductory philosophy courses. Did you simply forget them in your antipathy against the LDS?

**But then again, Colossians 2:8.**

I would think that is more relevant to your treatment of the LDS than of anything I’ve said! After all, I’m not trying to spoil your testimony of the Saviour!

**And with that, perhaps an ad hominem attack of Joseph Smith is appropriate as well….**

Didn’t you read the definition I provided for you? I remind you, Sir, that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. That is more like the “vain deceit” Paul warned about in the text you so kindly provided.

**Regarding the gold plates, on May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled “Hands-on opportunity.” Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, “He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit.” Your church says they were solid.**

Uh, no. Some reporter in a Church-owned newspaper said they were solid. I am no more bound by this than you are by what is written in a periodical published by your Church.

**You compared the weight carried by soldiers in the military. Didn’t Joseph tuck them under his arm and run at full-tilt for two miles?**

Ignoring your insulting tone, probably not. I imagine that he carried them in the most comfortable and secure way he could. And I doubt that Joseph Smith sprinted the full two miles. But then, I don’t think it necessary, because I doubt that his persuers could, either.

Kent, I don’t read creeds, so I can’t say. I do not hold to a creed. I will definitely say, however, I believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, but not the one of the Book of Mormon.

Why would Lucifer being an archangel make him a brother to Micheal or any other angel. They are created beings. They are not sons of God, no matter what you think. They are simply created beings. No souls = can’t be saved. Jesus didn’t die for them, only for the souls of men.

Richard, no, I was referring to your style of trying to make a point. Ironically damning? Not a chance. (at least to me)

Steve, you missed my point. You said that you didn’t have to defend anything you said. I pointed out that the subtitle of your blog was “defending Mormonism”. So…

Your use of Matt 18:7 (and Luke 17:1)was interesting to say the least, but out of context. It was in reference to people trying to keep children out of the kingdom of God. Please read the verses around it and stop proof-texting.

Great apostasy? Yes, and Joseph Smith was/is a great contributor towards it, not against it. He was a liar. He was not a true prophet of God. A true prophet speaks for God and what he says comes to pass. Exactly what was his track record? No better than a tarot card reader or Jeanne Dixon. Perhaps, not even as good! It has to be ALL, not just a couple. Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God didn’t get it right? Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God presented a common letter of the dead as a history of Abraham? Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God also claimed to be able to read Egyptian, then it was proven that he couldn’t? Doesn’t it then, make you wonder, that if this man who claimed to speak for God, who got so many other things wrong, that he might, he just might, be wrong about the rest, too?

Mormons, when cornered, always fall back on the “I prayed and asked God”. Well, the same could be said for Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and snake handlers. The same is definitely true for me. I prayed about the Book of Mormon when I was searching for God and the truth (after I read it), and I got nothing but silence. I prayed about the Catholic church when I was searching for God and the truth and got nothing but silence. I prayed about the Bible when I was searching for God and the truth, and God answered.

Apostasy? No doubt one has occured. Mormonism restoring the Gospel? Not a chance in Heaven or in Hell. Jesus of Mormonism existing? Only in the imagination of Joseph and his followers.

I’m not trying to spoil your testimony of the Savior as you accused me of. I am trying to help you see that the True Savior is not found in Mormonism. Your savior is a myth. The one true Messiah is not the offspring of a man-cum-god. If you find the true Messiah, then you will indeed have a testimony.

And you’ve missed mine, Sir. Are you going to follow the common rules of the logical Christian house, or not?

**You said that you didn’t have to defend anything you said. I pointed out that the subtitle of your blog was “defending Mormonism”. So…**

No, I said that I didn’t have to PROVE anything. They are not the same thing. Please read more carefully.

**Your use of Matt 18:7 (and Luke 17:1)was interesting to say the least, but out of context. It was in reference to people trying to keep children out of the kingdom of God. Please read the verses around it and stop proof-texting.**

I’m not proof-texting any more than you are. Or do you insist on denying me rights that you assert?

**Great apostasy? Yes, and Joseph Smith was/is a great contributor towards it, not against it.**

FINALLY, you address the issue! Now, Where’s your proof?

**Exactly what was his track record? No better than a tarot card reader or Jeanne Dixon. Perhaps, not even as good! It has to be ALL, not just a couple. Doesn’t it bother you that the man who claimed to speak for God didn’t get it right?**

You couldn’t give a few examples, could you? Since you’re playing the role of Satan the Accuser, you should know that in legal circles, you’re “assuming facts not in evidence.”

“Marcus Brody” says:
**Mormons, when cornered, always fall back on the “I prayed and asked God”. Well, the same could be said for Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and snake handlers. The same is definitely true for me. I prayed about the Book of Mormon when I was searching for God and the truth (after I read it), and I got nothing but silence.**

And, assuming the Book of Mormon was true, exactly what were you planning to do with that truth once you got it?

Do you think God is in the habit of giving people faith and truth that they cannot and will not back up with works?

**I prayed about the Catholic church when I was searching for God and the truth and got nothing but silence.**

Good for you–and for the Catholics! I suspect that the Catholics have quite enough embarassment! 😉

**I prayed about the Bible when I was searching for God and the truth, and God answered.**

Great! Now all you need to do is to live it!

There remains one question, though: WHICH Bible?

**Apostasy? No doubt one has occured.**

Agreed, though we disagree on its nature.

**Mormonism restoring the Gospel? Not a chance in Heaven or in Hell. Jesus of Mormonism existing? Only in the imagination of Joseph and his followers.**

That is something for you to prove, and not just assert. You are forbidden to convert this forum into a kangaroo court, with you as judge!

**I’m not trying to spoil your testimony of the Savior as you accused me of. I am trying to help you see that the True Savior is not found in Mormonism. Your savior is a myth. The one true Messiah is not the offspring of a man-cum-god. If you find the true Messiah, then you will indeed have a testimony.**

For your information, I first met the Saviour while worshipping with the Baptists. I’ve also notised Him around the Catholics and other Christians, as well. Yes, Sir, those other Christians include the Latter-day Saints!

Or you could simply ignore everything I said, and go back to reestablishing your kangaroo court. And I will immediately quash it.

NOYDMB says:
**As we discuss sources of the apostasy, and the timely conversations occuring elsewhere, it would be well to remind us all of Brother Robinson’s translation of apostasy, how the word contains a connotation of “mutiny”. Those who try to lead and control the church and usurp the proper leadership. One need only read abit from various blogs to see this same process starting to occur amongst ourselves today. Even from those among the fair board (not in this post). You gotta be careful who you trust.**

I think you and Rene’ are quite right on this. Much of the Great Apostasy seems to come from those who try to “steady the ark.” Perhaps the remainder comes from those in charge who made too many compromises in an attempt to keep the Church alive.

“Marcus Brody” attempts to “prove” Mormonism false:
“Jesus didn’t return in 1891. HC 2:182”
Who are you trying to kid? If you’d read D&C 130:15-17, which is appended to it, you’d see that he is saying that “the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:17).

Ah, the typical Mormon response, “What about Jonah?” It looks like you are trying to bait me.

To answer your question, yes, I believe that the Old Testament Prophet Jonah is a true Prophet of God.

Here’s why:

God sent Jonah to the Ninevites. Jonah disobeyed and had the fish experience. He repented and did what God asked him to do. The Ninevites responded to God’s proclamation, repented of their evil ways, and according the the promise in Jeremiah 18:8, God did what He said: “If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Although God fully intended to inflict destruction upon the city of Nineveh, He relented based upon their God-fearing response. Jonah 3:10 says, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”

Jonah himself understood that there was a possibility the destruction of Nineveh might not come to pass when he told God, “I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil” (Jonah 4:2).

And since Mormons are so fond of ‘word play’, let’s take a look at what Jonah actually said. “And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Jonah 3:4 Overthrown is the word we’re looking at. It didn’t say ‘destroyed’. Is said “overthrown”. The ruler of that city had been the prince of darkness. After the city repented, God became it’s ruler. So, indeed, Nineveh was overthrown, inasmuch as it abandoned one ruler (Satan) for another (God).

The problem with equating Joseph with Jonah is that many of Smith’s prophecies did not come to pass even after all the proper conditions were met.

….

Now then, you said I have “drained [y]our reservoir of good will”. Might I point out that you are the one who has used the following terms to describe me:

“making rude, un-Christian acts”
“snarky, self-righteous boor” (I found that one particularly clever)
“playing the role of Satan the Accuser”

You insinuated that it is good I chose not to become Catholic, because “the Catholics have quite enough embarassment [sic]!”

After I said that I found God after reading the Bible, you said, “Great! Now all you need to do is to live it!” Then, you went on to question “which” Bible I might have used. (FYI, it was the KJV)

Exactly what “good will” were you referring to? The ability for me to comment, question, criticize the doctrine and beliefs of your religion on a public blog? If that is the case, you might as well change the subtitle of your blog to: “Defending Mormonism – as long as we don’t have to prove anything or put up with snarky comments”

If I have attacked you personally, then I apologize. I do not apologize for attacking your religion nor for the comments I have made about your lying prophet, your false scripture, or your imaginary Jesus.

Ah, the typical anti-Mormon answer. Is it because you all try to dodge the hypocrisy you show in the standard Christian answer?

**It looks like you are trying to bait me.**

You need your eyes checked. 😉 It was just an honest question to see whether you were consistent or hypocritical in damning people.

**To answer your question, yes, I believe that the Old Testament Prophet Jonah is a true Prophet of God.**

So do I, but I think I’m more consistent than you are.

**God sent Jonah to the Ninevites. Jonah disobeyed and had the fish experience. He repented and did what God asked him to do. The Ninevites responded to God’s proclamation, repented of their evil ways, and according the the promise in Jeremiah 18:8, God did what He said: “If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Although God fully intended to inflict destruction upon the city of Nineveh, He relented based upon their God-fearing response. Jonah 3:10 says, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”**

Your problem, as “Richard Dawkins” implied, and Seth rightly pointed out, “But all that doesn’t take away the bare fact that God gave Jonah a pretty explicit prophesy, and it didn’t happen.

“God did not say: ‘say unto the people of Ninevah that they shall be destroyed UNLESS they repent.’

“No, he said: ‘tell them they will be destroyed.’ Period. No caveats, no provisos, straightforward. God said they’d be destroyed through His prophet. And it didn’t happen.”

Why are you SO willing to cut “your own” some slack, but not others?

**The problem with equating Joseph with Jonah is that many of Smith’s prophecies did not come to pass even after all the proper conditions were met.**

But your examples didn’t show that. As an example of your refusal to look at evidence which qualifies or contradicts your thesis, Joseph Smith provided two qualifications: “I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time (Doctrine and Covenants 130:17),” which did come to pass, and several reasons why he THOUGHT Jesus would come in 1890 or 1891 (HC 5:336, et seq.), which did not. You are obviously willing to cut Jonah slack, even when his prophecy is cut-and-dried, but you refuse to extend the same courtesy to Joseph Smith, whose prophecy you cited was anything but. Where I come from, that is called, “hypocrisy.”

**Might I point out that you are the one who has used the following terms to describe me:

“making rude, un-Christian acts”
“snarky, self-righteous boor” (I found that one particularly clever)
“playing the role of Satan the Accuser”

You insinuated that it is good I chose not to become Catholic, because “the Catholics have quite enough embarassment [sic]!”

After I said that I found God after reading the Bible, you said, “Great! Now all you need to do is to live it!”**

I’m sorry. Your comments, in light of Jesus’ command that “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them” (Matthew 7:12), led me to believe that you wanted me to treat you roughly. I apologise for not realising that what you REALLY wanted was to “dish it out” without having to take it! How silly of me!

**Then, you went on to question “which” Bible I might have used. (FYI, it was the KJV)**

That, believe it or not, was an HONEST question. The Bible you use gives me some idea of your religious position.

You DO know that the KJV is not the only Bible–or am I assuming too much?

Thank you for answering, though. That clears things up for me.

**Exactly what “good will” were you referring to? The ability for me to comment, question, criticize the doctrine and beliefs of your religion on a public blog? If that is the case, you might as well change the subtitle of your blog to: “Defending Mormonism – as long as we don’t have to prove anything or put up with snarky comments”**

You are perfectly free to “comment, question, criticize the doctrine and beliefs of your religion on a public blog” as long as you do so by civilised rules. But you didn’t; instead, you chose to insult us with amateur mind-reading and other personal attacks.

You claim to be a Christian; thus, I take you as one, and expect you to act like one. I, too, claim to be a Christian, because I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour–many years before I was baptised a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your snarky claim that I am not one is telling me that you think I am either too stupid to know what I think, too dishonest to tell the truth about that, or both.

Let me restate that I was attacking your actions ONLY. I try to leave such things as mindreading and judgment of one’s relatioship with God to God Himself–as I am totally incompetent to do those things. On the other hand, you appear to think you can do both of me and my fellow LDS, as shown by your comments:

**I do not apologize for attacking your religion nor for the comments I have made about your lying prophet, your false scripture, or your imaginary Jesus.**

As it happens, I first met the Saviour in the First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana. Are you trying to tell me that the Baptists are non-Christians who preach an “imaginary Jesus?”

Or, are you engaging in a personal attack by implying that I am lying when I say that I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour many years prior to my becoming a Latter-day Saint?

If the latter, you impel us to question the sincerity of your statement:

**If I have attacked you personally, then I apologize.**

However, I DO accept your apology, and ask you not to repeat it.

As I said above, you are quite free to question the truth of the Restored Gospel. You are not free, however, to “poison the well,” by attacking our honesty. You have your own blog. Do that in “your own house!”

Seth, would you mind quoting God’s exact words and Jonah’s exact words, for the record? If you don’t want to, I’ll certainly understand. Be sure to cite your source so that everyone can double check. An internet source would be preferable so that I can go to see exactly where you got it and then see for myself.

==

Steven, if you truly accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior back in Indiana, then Praise the Lord! You are indeed saved. However, simply by the fact that you have abandoned the Jesus that you accepted and now embrace the Jesus of Mormonism, gives evidence that there is a problem.

The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. (I just called them long distance to verify that) The Jesus you accepted in Mormonism requires that you do all that you can do, then grace is administered to make up the difference. (2 Nephi 25:23) Your readers have tried to make it very plain to me that (in the eyes of Mormons) the Jesus of non-Mormon churches (creedal churches, as you would say) is not the same Jesus as Mormonism. The “creedal” Jesus (whom you accepted) provides salvation by grace. The “Mormon” Jesus, whom you now proclaim, provides salvation “after all that you can do”. So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

In fact, your prophets have said: “One of the most pernicious doctrines ever advocated by man, is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone,’ which has entered into the hearts of millions since the days of the so-called ‘reformation.’” [Joseph Fielding Smith, page 192 of The Restoration of All Things] and Spencer W. Kimball said “In view of the emphasis thus far made on the importance of good works in returning from sin and establishing a repentant life, it may be well to say a word about the idea of salvation by faith alone. Some people not of our Church like to quote, in support of that concept, the following words of Paul: ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.’ (Eph. 2:8-9.)” Kimball went on to say, “One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation.” [The Miracle of Forgiveness, under the sub-heading “Faith and Works” p. 206] Why would you give up “grace” for “works”? That doesn’t make sense. (I’m not talking about general salvation; I’m talking about individual salvation/exaltation) That doesn’t sound like a “restored gospel”; that sounds like a different gospel.

Thank you for providing the words of each. I actually do appreciate your doing it.

As we all take a look at what it actually says, we see that “overthrown” is the operative word. As I took another look at this portion of Scripture, I realized that “destruction” was an assumption. We all assumed God meant destruction, but Jonah said it would be overthrown.

If you take a look at what actually happened, wouldn’t it then follow to say that the city WAS overthrown? Wasn’t it an evil city and following Jonah’s proclamation, it became a repentant city? Did it, therefore, go from being a city ruled by evil to a city ruled by God? Couldn’t you then say that it was overthrown?

The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon defines it: (Strongs #2015)
I. to turn, overthrow, overturn
1. (Qal)
a. to overturn, overthrow
b. to turn, turn about, turn over, turn around
c. to change, transform
2. (Niphal)
a. to turn oneself, turn, turn back
b. to change oneself
c. to be perverse
d. to be turned, be turned over, be changed, be turned against
e. to be reversed
f. to be overturned, be overthrown
g. to be upturned
3. (Hithpael)
a. to transform oneself
b. to turn this way and that, turn every way
4. (Hophal) to turn on someone

Perhaps God “meant” to destroy it, but the prophesy recorded was “overthrow”. Perhaps everyone understood that they were getting ready to die, but the prophesy proclaimed was “overthrow”. Perhaps Jonah even expected God to destroy Nineveh, but he told them it would be “overthrown”.

I think that what happened met the criteria of the prophesy. So, I agree that you cannot compare Joseph Smith with Jonah; Jonah’s prophesy came true.

The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. . . The Jesus you accepted in Mormonism requires that you do all that you can do, then grace is administered to make up the difference (2 Nephi 25:23). . . . The “Mormon” Jesus, whom you now proclaim, provides salvation “after all that you can do”. So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

I have always read 2 Nephi 25:23 to mean that we are saved by grace in spite of our best efforts.

Even accepting your interpretation—which many Mormons appear to share—a question remains. What is meant by “all we can do”?

In other words, how much grace is necessary to “make up the difference”?

That is certainly the question for Mormon theologians. How much grace?

The Mormon religion teaches, (does it not?) that forgiveness comes from repentance and baptism. The repentance spoken of requires you to stop your sin, (p 67, Gospel Fundamentals); abandon that sin, (Spencer W. Kimbal, The Miracle of Forgiveness p. 163); and to overcome sin (ibid. p 210). This sounds like a tall order to me. Are you personally able to do all of this? Is anyone you know able to do this?

The Bible says that ALL of our most righteous acts are as filthy rags (a polite way of saying ‘used tampons’) before the Lord. (Isaiah 64:6) Your personal interpretation is much closer to the truth than what your religion actually teaches.

To require you to “do” anything to gain the Lord’s favor, merit, grace, etc, puts that religion into a works based religion, along with Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism. To do “all you can do” then apply grace is contrary to what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.

The whole point of the Gospel (Good News!) is that while we were struggling under the Law of God, trying to make blood sacrifices and keeping all the commandments, God saw we weren’t able to uphold our part of the testament (covenant). Because He loves us so much and desires a relationship with us, He sent Jesus to die IN OUR PLACE so that He would BECOME the perfect sacrifice to satisfy the requirements of God.

We are to “repent and be baptized” BECAUSE OF or AT the forgiveness of our sins; not IN ORDER TO GAIN. There is a Bible Study tool I like to use called the Analytical-Literal Translation. It reads Acts 2:38 like this: “Then Peter was saying to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, to [or, for; or, because of] [the] forgiveness of sins, and you* will receive the free gift of the Holy Spirit.”

To try to “do” anything to earn God’s favor, merit, or grace, nullifies the “work” of Christ on the cross. His blood atonement on the cross “bought” our forgiveness from God. That is why the Bible says that “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9.

How much grace? It is ALL grace, by the design of God. Anything more is a different gospel.

=

Seth,

That isn’t what the Bible says. That’s not even the words that you copied. Where did you get that?

“Marcus Brody” says:
**Steven, if you truly accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior back in Indiana, then Praise the Lord! You are indeed saved. However, simply by the fact that you have abandoned the Jesus that you accepted and now embrace the Jesus of Mormonism, gives evidence that there is a problem.**

There you go again! Did they teach you in your “Ministry to the Cults” classes to assume that anything a “Mormon” says about himself is a lie?

For the record, Sir, not only have I not “abandoned” Jesus Christ, the Latter-day Saints have neither required, recommended, nor even suggested that I do so.

Your attempts at mind-reading are not only singularly unsuccessful, they are highly annoying.

**The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. (I just called them long distance to verify that)**

Did you call long distance, because you thought I would deny that? Your assumption of bad faith is appalling, Sir.

**The Jesus you accepted back in Indiana provides salvation by grace. (I just called them long distance to verify that) The Jesus you accepted in Mormonism requires that you do all that you can do, then grace is administered to make up the difference. (2 Nephi 25:23) Your readers have tried to make it very plain to me that (in the eyes of Mormons) the Jesus of non-Mormon churches (creedal churches, as you would say) is not the same Jesus as Mormonism. The “creedal” Jesus (whom you accepted) provides salvation by grace. The “Mormon” Jesus, whom you now proclaim, provides salvation “after all that you can do”. So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.**

Let me get this straight: You called long distance to verify the doctrines of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, USA, yet you feel that you must tell ME what *I* believe! You cannot even trouble yourself enough to ask me how I understand the Scriptures that I accept, can you, Sir?

Do you think that I am so stupid, or so dishonest (or both!) that I need YOU, whom you deem so God-like, that you can tell ME what *I* believe more accurately than *I* can?

Do you not see the arrogant disconnect, Sir?

For the record, I read II Nephi 25:23 as PK Andersen does: All we can do is insufficient to save us; only the Grace of Jesus Christ can do that.

Marcus Brody says:
**In fact, your prophets have said: “One of the most pernicious doctrines ever advocated by man, is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone,’ which has entered into the hearts of millions since the days of the so-called ‘reformation.’” [Joseph Fielding Smith, page 192 of The Restoration of All Things]**

Indeed. That is because it is not possible for true faith to be alone [See James 2:17; dead faith is not true faith.], any more than it is possible for God to lie [Hebrews 6:18].

**Why would you give up “grace” for “works”? That doesn’t make sense.**

That doesn’t make sense to me, either. And that’s NOT what I did. True faith manifests, or “perfects” itself through works [See James 2:22].

Do you think that doing works means that one has no faith or grace? I don’t. While I agree that it is possible to do works and not have faith (Believe it or not, the phrase “dead works” occurs more often in the Book of Mormon than it does in the Bible!), I would, like the Apostle James, submit that it is impossible to have faith and not do works.

If those with faith do no works, are they any better off than devils, who also believe, but work no righteousness [See James 2:19]?

Thanks for your reply. I would like to comment on a few points that you raise:

The Mormon religion teaches, (does it not?) that forgiveness comes from repentance and baptism. The repentance spoken of requires you to stop your sin, (p 67, Gospel Fundamentals); abandon that sin, (Spencer W. Kimbal, The Miracle of Forgiveness p. 163); and to overcome sin (ibid. p 210). This sounds like a tall order to me. Are you personally able to do all of this? Is anyone you know able to do this?

A tall order, yes; but it is exactly what God requires of us. We are commanded to be perfect, even as Jesus and the Father are perfect.

Obviously, all that is beyond my ability. That is why I need the grace of God.

Do you not agree that the Bible teaches faith, repentance, baptism, and abandonment of sin?

Your personal interpretation is much closer to the truth than what your religion actually teaches.

I have a fairly good idea of what my religion teaches, and I do not see a discrepancy.

To require you to “do” anything to gain the Lord’s favor, merit, grace, etc, puts that religion into a works based religion, along with Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism.

I cannot pretend to be an expert in Catholicism, much less Buddhism or Islam. However, my Catholic friends would probably disagree with your description of their faith. They tell me that both faith and good works are the product of God’s grace and are only possible with God’s grace.

To do “all you can do” then apply grace is contrary to what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.

Apparently we disagree on the the gospel is “all about.”

The Bible is full of exhortations to action. As James wrote, we must be “doers of the word, and not hearers only.”

When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he could do to inherit eternal life, Jesus told him to keep the commandments. When the young man said he had done so from his youth, Jesus said, “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (Luke 18:18-21).

Perhaps my reading of the Bible is too literal, but I see Jesus as telling the rich young ruler to do something to receive eternal life. Jesus said nothing to him about grace; he spoke of obedience and works.

To try to “do” anything to earn God’s favor, merit, or grace, nullifies the “work” of Christ on the cross. His blood atonement on the cross “bought” our forgiveness from God. That is why the Bible says that “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9.

I do not see how any effort on my part could somehow nullify the Atonement. Quite the contrary. The Atonement makes it possible for me to follow Jesus Christ.

Following Jesus requires great effort. As Jesus said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24; see also Mark 10:38.) That is only possible through the grace of God.

There is no attempt at mind reading. I am simply restating what the readers of this blog stated: the Mormon Jesus isn’t the same as the “creedal” Jesus. You said you accepted Jesus at the First Baptist Church in Hammond, IN. The Jesus that they believe in is the “creedal” Jesus. If the “creedal” Jesus is imaginary, how can He save you? I want to know how you can resolve that.

I’ve never taken a “Ministry to the Cults” class, but it sounds interesting.

No, I called them to make sure it wasn’t some funky kind of Baptist church. Their website didn’t show any affiliation with any group, so I called them to ask. Your assumptions towards me are equally as appalling. As is your vilifying my every statement.

Your over-use of the word “sir” is interesting, too, but I think you are using it derogatorily. (Am I reading your mind, or will you say that you truly regard me with respect?)

No, I do not think you are stupid. Not at all. Nor do I think you are dishonest. I do, however, think you have been deceived.

I am very glad to know that you think the same as PK regarding II Nephi 25:23. Again I say, that from everything I have read on LDS websites and in your material, that is not what the LDS Church teaches. After all, if you can get saved in a Baptist church, why does the Mormon church bother to exist? Aren’t all non-Mormon Christians apostate?

Your 28 years as a Mormon surely has shown you the differences, right? What part is the restoration? Please tell me what YOU believe.

First of all, WOW! I really like how you put those little gray lines to denote my quotes. That is really neat. Much more defined than my “cutting and pasting”! But, here it goes…

PK said, “Do you not agree that the Bible teaches faith, repentance, baptism, and abandonment of sin?”

Yes, I do, but I think it teaches faith comes first, then as a result of faith there will be repentance and baptism. In other words, there is repentance and baptism BECAUSE the forgiveness of sins. Romans 10:9-10 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” There is no talk of repentance or baptism here.

It is possible that some would. My father’s family is all Catholic and this is most assuredly what they believe.

PK said, “Apparently we disagree on [what] the gospel is “all about.” ”

Yes, I think we do.

PK said, “…I see Jesus as telling the rich young ruler to do something to receive eternal life.”

I see it as Jesus reading the man’s heart and exposing it as unwilling to follow Him. I see the man as wanting to prove his righteousness and Jesus called him on it. It was a matter of the heart not a matter of works.

Then why do you persist in telling me what I believe, instead of asking me?

**I am simply restating what the readers of this blog stated: the Mormon Jesus isn’t the same as the “creedal” Jesus.**

There are two senses to the word “different.” One is in the sense that Cleveland, Ohio is a now different city from thirty-years ago, before it was cleaned up; and the second is that Cleveland, Ohio is a different city from Cleveland, Tennessee. Why do you insist that we can only mean the latter sense?

**You said you accepted Jesus at the First Baptist Church in Hammond, IN. The Jesus that they believe in is the “creedal” Jesus. If the “creedal” Jesus is imaginary, how can He save you? I want to know how you can resolve that.**

I don’t need to. I never said that “the ‘creedal’ Jesus is imaginary.” You or I may be wrong on some of His traits, but that doesn’t mean that He cannot save either of us.

**I’ve never taken a “Ministry to the Cults” class, but it sounds interesting.**

I’ve sat in on some of them. It’d probably be an easy A for you, but, in my observation, much of it is bunk! 😉

Marcus Brody says:
**No, I called them to make sure it wasn’t some funky kind of Baptist church. Their website didn’t show any affiliation with any group, so I called them to ask.**

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

In my observation, though, the “funky” Baptist Churches (Like the Westboro Baptist Church) tend toward “hyperfundamentalism.” If anything, I imagine that they would believe MORE in “faith alone” than you.

**Your assumptions towards me are equally as appalling.**

I tried not to make any assumptions. That was why I ASKED rather than TOLD you why.

Unlike some people, I am well aware that I am utterly incompetent to mindread. 😉

**As is your vilifying my every statement.**

Does this mean that you can villify me as much as you wish, but I am NEVER allowed to take issue with it?

If I’d have gone onto your blog and acted as you had, I have no doubt that you’d have slammed and banned me. And you’d have been in the right to do so.

I am more than happy to answer your legitimate questions. All I ask in return is for you to behave civilly, instead of acting offended when I admonish you about your uncivil behaviour.

**Your over-use of the word “sir” is interesting, too, but I think you are using it derogatorily. (Am I reading your mind, or will you say that you truly regard me with respect?)**

You think wrongly, Sir. I regard you with COURTESY, which is a lot more than you’ve been regarding us!

Look, I don’t like calling people down for discourtesy. If you would simply be courteous towards us, I wouldn’t have to choose between calling you down and letting you hijack this blog.

Marcus Brody says:
**No, I do not think you are stupid. Not at all. Nor do I think you are dishonest. I do, however, think you have been deceived.**

Yes, we know that. It would be wise, I think, to find out what we believe before concluding that we are deceived.

**I am very glad to know that you think the same as PK regarding II Nephi 25:23. Again I say, that from everything I have read on LDS websites and in your material, that is not what the LDS Church teaches.**

Has it occurred to you that PK’s and my understanding of II Nephi 25:23 might be less rare than you think? In my experience, it is the majority view.

Would you consider whether Latter-day Saints have a better grasp about the meaning of LDS-unique Scriptures than their critics?

Marcus Brody asks:
**After all, if you can get saved in a Baptist church, why does the Mormon church bother to exist?**

Good question! I have three reasons, off the top of my head:
1. “Further light and knowledge,”
2. To restore authority to act in God’s name that was lost in the Great Apostasy, and
3. Related to #2, since God is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” [Hebrews 13:8], God continues to speak for us. Since He has Prophets in both the Old and New Testaments, it’s logical to assume that He still has them!

**Your 28 years as a Mormon surely has shown you the differences, right? What part is the restoration? Please tell me what YOU believe.**

Differences between what? Original Christianity and the hodgepodge of Christian Churches that came after the apostasy? Of course. But there are also similarities. These, of course, caused me to reevaluate just what the Great Apostasy was.

Why don’t you reread my original blog entry on this and get back to me?

You can get the vertical gray bars and the indented text using the HTML “blockquote” command. For example, the HTML code

<blockquote>

Time flies like the wind;
Fruit flies like bananas.

</blockquote>

produces the output

Time flies like the wind;
Fruit flies like bananas.

You wrote,

Yes, I do, but I think it teaches faith comes first, then as a result of faith there will be repentance and baptism. In other words, there is repentance and baptism BECAUSE the forgiveness of sins.

I think you and I both agree that faith precedes (and leads to) repentance and baptism.

Where you and I may differ is on the purpose of baptism. I believe that baptism (by immersion) is required for salvation; some Christians say it is optional. What is your belief about baptism?

I see it as Jesus reading the man’s heart and exposing it as unwilling to follow Him. I see the man as wanting to prove his righteousness and Jesus called him on it. It was a matter of the heart not a matter of works.

You may be right that it was more a matter of the heart than works. But then, obedience almost always is.

I believe that Jesus meant what he said: To gain eternal life, the young man had to obey the commandments, give what he had to the poor, and follow Jesus. In other words, the young man had to act.

Although he apparently already believed in Jesus and his teachings, the young man’s commitment to live those teachings was still lacking. (I have always hoped that he later changed his mind and did as he had been asked.)

Obedience is not a question of “earning” salvation. God obviously did not need the young man’s riches. But the young man needed to give them up to follow Jesus and thereby to gain eternal life.

There is no bait here. Would you describe your understanding of the atonement so that I can understand where you are coming from?

Briefly, Atonement means “at-one-ment,” and refers to the act of reconciling those who have been estranged. Because of our sins, we have become estranged from God, and are excluded from returning to him. Because of Adam, we also have inherited physical death.

Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, offered to take upon himself the penalty for our sins, as well as the effects of the fall of Adam. To accomplish this, Jesus condescended to be born and to live as a mortal man. He was “in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15) Indeed, he did the will of his Father in all things. At the culmination of his mortal life, he suffered for our sins, died on the cross, and rose from the tomb on the third day.

Because of the Atonement, all men will be raised from the dead. Moreover, those who exercise faith in Jesus Christ will have their sins remitted, and they will receive eternal life.

What other things did you have to do when you joined the Mormon church to make your previous salvation experience complete? In other words, what did the LDS church require of you to give you individual salvation that they felt you did not attain at the experience at FBC, Hammond?

You asked about my belief about baptism. I see it is a step of obedience after salvation that shows everyone what has already taken place in your life. That you were once alive in sin, that your “old self” died with Christ, and that upon rising out of the water as Christ raised from the dead, you, too are able to walk in a newness of life. For me, it has no mystical effects, no regenerative qualities. It is like a living photograph. As like you, I believe it must be by immersion, otherwise the symbolism is completely missed.

Thank you for explaining your views on the atonement. I appreciate your taking the time to do that.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS! You went from “overthrown” to “destruction” outside of the Word of God. Is this just another case of your “making bold assertions without backing them up”, as you stated about yourself on Nine Moons? Or is it evidence of this illusive “same vocabulary, different dictionary” I keep hearing about?

I like my apples ice cold. Or better yet, sliced up and cooked in a pie with vanilla ice cream, thank you very much. You?

I believe Jesus may have had you, and others of your ilk in mind when He declared:

Matt 23:24 – Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Not to be rude, but merely to illustrate that it is not to your advantage to focus on one aspect of the gospel, while disregarding others entirely.

For instance, it baffles me that “works” can be completely disregarded by you by the citation of certain scriptures from the NT, yet you ignore others entirely. The second chapter of James, for example.

Entire churches have been formed centering around one aspect of the gospel. The 7th Day, grace, baptism, the day of Pentecost, etc… These strain at a gnat, yet swallow a camel.

It is folly to believe that man should not be expected to work for his own salvation. God will have an obedient and hard-working people, as He has always done. Not merely those who draw near with their lips only, yet their hearts (and hands) are far from Him.

Perhaps Paul had you in mind when he wrote Galatians 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

To work for ones salvation implies that there is a misunderstanding of what actually happened on the cross. When Jesus cried out “It is finished”, He was declaring all the work “done”. He became the perfect sacrifice to satisfy God.

To your last paragraph I bring this for your consideration:
I Corinthians 1:18 “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon defines it: (Strongs #2015)
I. to turn, overthrow, overturn
1. (Qal)
a. to overturn, overthrow
b. to turn, turn about, turn over, turn around
c. to change, transform
2. (Niphal)
a. to turn oneself, turn, turn back
b. to change oneself
c. to be perverse
d. to be turned, be turned over, be changed, be turned against
e. to be reversed
f. to be overturned, be overthrown
g. to be upturned
3. (Hithpael)
a. to transform oneself
b. to turn this way and that, turn every way
4. (Hophal) to turn on someone

Using the majority of definitions of the variations of the root, again I assert that Nineveh WAS overthrown.

It is interesting to note that the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, did not “correct” this word when translating the King James Bible. Obviously, he saw it as correct. Also, the LDS website doesn’t give a “special definition” of “overthrown” on their website: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jonah/3. So, it is safe to say that the definition of the word “overthrown” is the same in your LDS dictionary as it is in mine.

You should have taught that principle to the apostle James, who taught after the crucifixion that faith without works is dead. He exhorted us to be doers of the word, and not hearers only.

You could also have taught that principle to Christ, Himself, who returned after He was crucified to claim His physical body and show to His disciples that there is more to be done. His atonement was finished on the cross, but the work was just beginning.

There was incontrovertible evidence that there was life after death. The apostles were sent to all nations to declare the resurrected Lord, and to bring all unto Christ through their faith and their good works.

I would find it very difficult to continually deny these truths contained in the very Bible we share in common. It must take practice.

Whether or not Jonah was bitter about what God did, the prophecy he proclaimed was fulfilled.

I was living in a different country one time when its government was overthrown. They called it a “bloodless coup”. No shots fired. No destruction of any kind. However, let me tell you, that country was never the same after they got rid of that tyrant!

Ryan,

So, for the record, are you disagreeing with Steven and PK? They have both said that they believe it is grace that saves you. (PK, Steven, did I get that right?) The reason I want to know is that Steven said:

Has it occurred to you that PK’s and my understanding of II Nephi 25:23 might be less rare than you think? In my experience, it is the majority view.

I’m now wondering how other readers of this blog think about this?

Why is it you ignore the majority of the Gospel that says “Believe” and says nothing more of works? (for example, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, Romans 10:13, Acts 16:30-31, Ephesians 2:8-9) Why do you dwell on only one book? James is CLEARLY teaching that your works DEMONSTRATE your faith. Not vice versa. You do good works BECAUSE OF your faith.

That is why I insist Mormonism is a different Gospel. It was given by an angel to a man who gave it to you (or, at least that is the testimony of your religion). TO that I submit (again) Galatians 1:8-9.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when you try to tell Jesus that His death on the cross wasn’t sufficient for salvation; that there is something else we must do. Actually, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere around if you ever did that. Same with James. There could be no offense to our Lord greater than saying that His sacrifice wasn’t good enough.

By the way, where in the world did you get the idea that “Christ returned to claim his physical body”? That must be some of your “new revelation” because that certainly isn’t in the Bible.

===

BTW, I won’t be checking anything on the computer (most likely) until Tuesday. Please don’t assume that I have “gone off in a huff” again. Have a happy and safe Labor Day!

Steve,
It is interesting that you bring up “steadying the ark.” One group of pseudofaithful Mormons presented reasoning on John Taylor’s interpretation of the “steadying of the ark” episode in the OT was bunk. In reality, they say, the man was doing God’s will, and God showed His thanks by striking him dead. Apparently, the man was sinless and it was his leader’s fault (David’s). It was so interesting to read how the “liberal” mind reads and expounds on scripture in a way to 1) excuse their disobedience to the laws of God, 2) instead ascribe sin to their leaders, and 3) remove the responsibility of the individual and instead blame it on the priesthood leader.

Furthermore, these same [what I consider] apostates, refuse to recognize priesthood authority. Some said, “It is a logical fallacy to respond to an authority,” to which I reply, “Not if Mormonism is about authority.

A suggestion about Marcus. While it is always a good idea to help people understand us (and us to understand them), it is somewhat tedious to read through Marcus’ comments that are completely off-topic (and then the responses that are even further off topic). Might I suggest we ask him, (and others) to stay on topic, and save off topic discussions for email. fwiw.

No Marcus, Jonah clearly interpreted the prophesy to mean destruction. This leaves two options:

1. God did not fulfill a prophesy that he caused to be made or

2. The Prophet in question screwed up the interpretation of the prophesy and it didn’t happen according to said prophet’s flawed interpretation

Just because overthrow means a lot of things to you does not mean Jonah felt the same way. He was clearly pissed off that Ninevah wasn’t destroyed and I think that’s exactly what he verbally prophesied to the people. In fact the people of Ninevah, after Jonah’s words were saying “let’s get our act together to prevent this destruction from happening because maybe God will change His mind.” Everyone in this passage is pretty clearly down with the destruction interpretation.

You’re the only one here trying to feebly claim “well that’s not what he really meant…”

But either way, can’t you see how evasive and weak your apologetic arguments on this issue sound? We Mormons get accused of making lame justifications for our religion all the time. Are you really so self-unobservant that you can’t see yourself doing the exact same thing?

So, for the record, are you disagreeing with Steven and PK? They have both said that they believe it is grace that saves you. (PK, Steven, did I get that right?) . . . .

The Bible and Book of Mormon both teach salvation by grace. Regardless of how one may interpret “all we can do” in 2 Nephi 25:23, the fact remains that “it is by grace we are saved.”

Through the Atonement, Jesus Christ has made salvation possible, doing for us what we cannot possibly do for ourselves. We could not raise ourselves from the dead; we cannot forgive our own sins; we cannot command the Holy Ghost to be with us. It is only through the grace of God that these things are possible.

I suppose the question is whether we have to do anything to benefit from God’s grace. The answer is clearly yes: we are required to be obedient to Jesus Christ. “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Hebrews 5:9)

So what has Jesus commanded us to do? Here is a short (and incomplete) list:

• Repent (Matthew 4:17);

• Be baptized by water and the Spirit (John 3:5);

• Fast and pray (Matthew 6:5-18);

• Love one another (John 13:34);

• Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44);

• Give alms to the poor (Matthew 6:1-4);

• Obey the Ten Commandments (Luke 18:18-20);

• Deny yourself, take up the cross, and follow Jesus (Matthew 16:24);

• Endure to the end. (Matthew 10:22).

Some may object that I have outlined a “gospel of works.” In reply, I would point out that works is not a bad word in the scriptures:

• Paul preached that the people should “do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20).

• Jesus taught that by good works we share the gospel: “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

• James wrote that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17, 20, 26). Faith is “made perfect” by works (James 2:22). Moreover, “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24, 25).

• Paul taught that God will “render to every man according to his deeds [i.e., works].” Hence, God will give eternal life to those “who by patient well doing [i.e., good works] seek for glory and honour and immortality.” (Romans 2:6, 7)

The latter point is especially interesting. Far from condemning works as nullifying grace, Paul says that those who perform good works to obtain eternal life will receive it.

Thank you for a very concise thoughtful explanation of what you believe about grace. That took a long time to get that all down and I appreciate your effort!

I respectfully disagree with your answer to your statement, “I suppose the question is whether we have to do anything to benefit from God’s grace.” Since the Bible describes God’s grace as a free gift, it would then follow that it comes to anyone who asks for it. If I were to give you a gift, then you pulled out a $20 bill to give to me for the gift, you would no longer be receiving a gift, but something that you paid for. I being the gift giver, would be offended that you thought you needed to “do” anything to earn the honor to receive my gift. I would say that I bought this gift myself just to give to you. If you pay me for it, then you take the “gift” element out of the deal and simply make it a “transaction”. God’s grace is a free gift of God. You can’t do anything to benefit from it. (Eph 2:8-9)

===

NOYDMB,
It is interesting that you think my questions/comments are “tedious”. I consider all of my questions directly related to the “Great Apostasy”. Not the definition of mutiny as has been purposed, but the original one, that is, that “none of the churches are right”. Using the original meaning of apostasy, all of my questions as comments are directly related, for they are denying the LDS assertion that they are restoring the gospel and are asserting that the LDS church is one which is apostate. So, back to the original post, let’s indeed talk about this great apostasy.

===

Ryan,

You can play games all you want. I find the subject of grace vs works extremely serious and worthy of discussion.

Your interpretation of the resurrection is interesting. I’ve NEVER heard it as Jesus returning to “claim His body”. Is that a specific teaching/wording of the LDS church?

===

Seth,

You said:

You’re the only one here trying to feebly claim “well that’s not what he really meant…”

I have only said, “that’s not what the Bible said”. Please do not distort my words to say something that it did not. That seems to be what you are doing with the Word of God.

All that aside, it was Steven who brought up Jonah. He was trying to bait me to “prove” that Jonah wasn’t a true prophet according to definition. It was both you and Steven who didn’t like the first answer I gave explaining why I believed Jonah was indeed a prophet. So, I began to look deeper into the story and for the first time discovered what the prophecy actually was. As I pointed this out, I am now accused of using “evasive and weak” apologetic arguments. It may well be weak, but there is nothing evasive about it.

If Joseph Smith didn’t regard Jonah as a true prophet, why, then, did he keep the book of Jonah in his own translation of the Bible? He certainly wouldn’t have put in a book of a false prophet, would he? Isn’t it “the most correct book on earth?”

Of course, if that is true, why did it talk about elephants and horses? Steel and wheat? But that is a whole other subject, but perhaps relevant to the Great Apostasy.

I do take this seriously. The comparison to ping pong was made simply to illustrate how we continually return a volley of words similar to those which preceeded them.

I do not believe that doctrine of the resurrection which we believe in is entirely unique, although I have heard of various Christian faiths who believe that Christ currently exists in spirit form. Completely incongruent with the Bible.

As for the notion that Christ returned to claim His own physical body, I can refer you to the following scriptures, and trust that they will seem as plain to you in explaining this doctrine as they have been for me:

Matt. 16: 21 – “…began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must … be killed, and be raised again the third day.”

Matt. 26: 32 – “after I am risen again, I will go … into Galilee.”

Matt. 28: 6 – “He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.”

John 2: 19 – “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it.”

The final scripture seems particularly key to this doctrine, in my opinion. The Lord was adamant that He would return to raise His own temple (His body). Combine that with the empty tomb on the 3rd day, and you have your resurrection.

As for the grace/works debate, it is important to bear in mind that we (Mormons) do NOT believe that our own works are what will earn us resurrection (salvation from the dead), or a fighting chance to be judged worthy of the Kingdom of God. We understand that those works could only have been provided for us by the Son of God. However, to refer to them as “free” not only cheapens the unimaginable price which was paid by the Lord, but it would seek to open the pathway for ALL men to return to live with God. This cannot be. Sin separates us from God, and the way to heaven is straight, and narrow, by the Lord’s own admission.

A resurrected body is the gift to all. That is salvation. Exaltation, however, is granted to us based on our works, our righteousness, and our obedience. You are probably familiar with the doctrine of “degrees of glory”, well, THAT is what we are working for. Here are some more scriptures on that note, and I bid you adieu.

By your bidding me “adieu”, I assume you are through with me. I understand.

I must, however, reply when you say:

However, to refer to them as “free” not only cheapens the unimaginable price which was paid by the Lord, but it would seek to open the pathway for ALL men to return to live with God.

I must remind you that I was merely quoting scripture when I used the word “free”. The Apostle Paul is the one who actually first used the word by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, I guess you have a beef with God’s word, not just with me. Ephesians 2:8-9

That is, after all, what the Good News is all about. That IS the Gospel. That ALL the work has been done for us and we need only to accept that FREE gift. Many, many reject it. Some, on the basis of disbelief. Others on the basis of flat out rebellion to God. Others still, on the basis of ignorance. (that is, they don’t know) Once again, that is why I must insist that Mormonism gives a different Gospel.

Your explanation of the “grace/works debate” provides a very clear insight into Mormon doctrine. I really appreciate your sharing it with me for I am more determined than ever to stand against Mormonism. Thank you.

Exaltation is distinctly Mormon. Don’t get caught up in the “third Heaven” as thinking it is the same as your “Celestial Kingdom”; it is not. I am familiar with your “degrees of glory” doctrine. I reject it.

What you have demonstrated here, for which I am very appreciative, is that Mormons do indeed, use the same vocabulary, but have a different dictionary.

Well, that certainly makes it convenient to be able to include Joseph Smith in the prophet category then, at least by YOUR definition. I would think it would make it much easier to overlook all of the mistakes, errors, and flat out wrong things he did, huh?

I was just using the Bible’s definition. Deut 18:22 And, since Joseph Smith had SEVERAL prophesies that didn’t come to pass, well, it followed then, from the Biblical definition, that he, indeed, is/was a false prophet.

It appears to me that when “push comes to shove”, that Mormons would prefer to get their definitions from Mormon scriptures rather than from the Bible, right? I guess that would make sense, since much of the distinctively Mormon doctrine is definitely not Biblical.

I can tell that a threadjack occurred long ago, and the current discussion is far from the original posting. Is it a threadjack to bring up again the original posting?

If you’ll allow, I’d like to share some thoughts that are almost sacred to me. In doing so, I’d like to hope for a sense of Christian brotherhood.

The original posting (if you’ve forgotten it, please re-read it) offered a very kind hand to early Christians, in contrast to a hard line rejection. The posting assumed a great apostasy actually occurred (so that assumption needs to be honored in my reply), but the posting explores the possibility of kindly and generously seeing many or even most early Christians as doing their best to salvage what truth they could, in contrast to a harder view of them as sinners purposefully perverting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I’d like to add a personal thought to that original posting. I appreciate the posting. Sometimes we can better judge people in the past by asking what would we do in a similar circumstance.

I live on an island in Alaska. No one can come here except by boat or aeroplane. If we imagine that such travel became impossible for an extended period of time, not just here but everywhere in the world, we can envision a circumstance where the one and only bishop on the island cannot be replaced — because the stake president far, far away can’t get here to lay his hands on a new bishop, and maybe the stake president can’t even contact the headquarters of the world-wide church to get permission to call a new bishop. Please allow me to use this as the background.

In such a case, I suppose that our bishop would continue to hold his office and exercise his keys until he died. In the meantime, as circumstances arose on our island, we would have to solve our own problems by ourselves. There might be differences of opinion among us on how to solve a problem. We would do the best we could. As long as the bishop was alive, we could baptize our children and we could offer the sacrament. But what about when the bishop dies? If I have a child approaching the age of baptism, do I baptize her even though there is no one here holding the keys of presidency of the Aaronic Priesthood (to which priesthood this ordinance rightly belongs)? And do I ordain my son a teacher when he is ready? And what of my oldest son — do I ordain him an elder? All in the absence of appropriate authority? Who presides at our sacrament meeting? When our members disagree among themselves about particular matters (such as some might if I did choose to proceed with these saving ordinances for my children), will we reject each other and fragment into smaller groups? All of this is very likely. Does this necessarily suggest all these people on my island will be apostates, purposefully so? No. In such a circumstance, we’ll have no choice but to do the best we can, and hopefully we’ll be kind to other members who have differing opinions on how to best proceed. And one day (ten years from now? a thousand years?), proper authority will come here again to put things in order.

Perhaps many early Christians found themselves in similar circumstances. And perhaps many of these people did the best they could. Why did the apostles stop visiting? That’s irrelevant — the fact is, as Latter-day Saints today understand, that they stopped visiting. And no doubt, there were a few wolves in sheep’s clothing among them.

So even if we agree that true priesthood authority was lost and the apostleship was taken from the early Church, must we ascribe purposeful apostasy to every member? No, in my opinion — and, I discern, in the view of the original posting.

And isn’t is truly amazing how much truth was saved? Wow! How great God is! God can use all circumstances to bring about his eternal purposes.

Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the only true and living Church on the face of the whole earth? My testimony is that it is. Is it the only church with truth? No. And I believe we have so much in common with traditional Christianity that I am saddened that we are often not allowed to worship and share in peace. Satan laughs at “Christian” hatred.

I write this as a convert to the Church. I hope lifetime Latter-day Saints can accept my offering even though I’m a convert. And I hope non-Latter-day Saints can accept that I wish them no ill will but hope that they might join with me someday at the feast I’m enjoying.

You make GREAT points! I’d like to add to your scenario to clarify things a bit more:

As I think most of us know, in the early days of the first millenium, there was organised state persecution of Christians. If such persecution happened today (not unreasonable, seeing that the Church was absent as an institution in the Warsaw Bloc during the Cold War–as well as absent today in most Muslim nations), there would be gaping holes in local and general Church leadership–as there was in the ancient Roman Empire.

Imagine the Islamofascists (to distinguish from normative Muslims, whom I greatly admire!) taking over the nation of Lower Slobovia. Of course, they would declare that all who would not “revert” to (their brand of) Islam would be killed. Now imagine the local Bishop in Styx City being made an early example. Would the Stake President in Lower Slobovia’s capital risk calling a new Bishop, or would he–if he could–advise the Saints to “lay low” until the nation could be liberated?

Moreover, what would President Monson and the Brethren in Salt Lake do if the Islamofascists slaughtered most of the Stake and Ward leadership in Lower Slobovia? Would they risk their lives going over there to install new local leaders–or to preside themselves? SHOULD they do that?

I think many of us can see how such can happen in an isolated area of the world–at least one isolated from the bulk of Church membership. It shouldn’t be too great a leap to imagine the chaos of second to third century Rome, except that, with the bulk of general Church leadership being there, there were gaping holes in Priesthood leadership from top to bottom.

Moreover, we Latter-day Saints should have greater appreciation of such an apostasy, even in those with the best of intentions. The great periods of apostasy occurred when the Church as a whole was being persecuted from top down. Witness the extermination order, Joseph Smith’s assassination, the “Utah War”/MMM, and the end of polygamy; in each of those periods, even general authorities fell away.

John, the Church is an amazing institution, where the world is indeed small. I first met my Bishop when he (then 17 years old) was assigned by his Stake President father to teach prospective Elders (including 18-year-old me!). Today, I am his counselor in a Ward and Stake hundreds of miles away. Moreover, his father served in our present Stake’s High Council–and was in the local Temple Presidency.

To this day, I am grateful that Uncle Sam introduced me to Heavenly Father’s Church! What a wild ride! 🙂

And the Saints left in Styx City will do the best they can, without “leadership”. Perhaps they’ll have differences of opinion. One man might baptize his daughter, assuming it’s the best decision under the circumstances. And another might not, saying he can’t without a bishop’s permission. Hopefully, these two members won’t get hateful with each other. Similarly, one might ordain his nineteen-year-old son an elder; and another man might not (absent a stake president’s permission and a vote in a stake conference).

If the period of absence is short, here’s what might happen: One day, someone with authority will come through. He might ratify (or obtain ratification from the appropriate source for) the ordinances that were “improvidently” performed, or he might require that they be re-performed. Either way, there will be no permanent harm caused by those priesthood holders who took it upon themselves (perhaps unrighteously in the eyes of some) to perform ordinances, which CLEARLY the handbook says they shouldn’t have performed without permission.

If the period of absence is long, then the children of these men might follow their fathers’s differing examples and separate from each other, each thinking the other is wrong but not understanding why. When the bishop dies, do the people do without, or do they elect one? And then, many years or generations later, when a man with proper authority finally does come to Styx City, neither clan might recognize him (and he might not recognize either of those clans, either).

Yes, there is no doubt that there were wolves in sheeps clothing among the early Saints, and no doubt there was some purposeful individual apostasy. But I’m willing to give most of the early Saints the benefit of the doubt and say they did the best they could in a day without leadership or communications — plus the organized pogroms.

But I wonder today, if any of us lived in your imaginary Styx City, and our neighbor made a decision to or not to baptize his daughter or ordain his son, would we still love him as a brother in the Gospel doing the best he could in hard times or would we hate him and quote the handbook against him? As a whole people, I’m afraid we’re not perfect yet.

Moreover, there is ample precedent to that: 144 years ago, Walter Gibson, sent as a mission president to Hawaii, tried to pervert the Gospel there, and to set himself up as “king.” Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, and Ezra T. Benson came from Salt Lake to excommunicate Gibson, and install new local leadership.

I can just imagine the trepidation righteous members had when they fell afoul of usurper-king. Those Christians in ancient Rome must have felt as bad or worse when many in the remaining leadership kept their noses to the tail of secular rulers.

As the Book of Mormon put it, they were “humble followers of Christ” who did sometimes “err because they are taught by the precepts of men” [II Nephi 28:14].

[…] non-LDS Christians–and not just anti-Mormons. While (as believing Latter-day Saints should) I remain a believer that ancient Christianity had suffered from an apostasy, I find that I must remind myself of the sometimes heroic efforts of non-LDS Christians to salvage […]